АҚШ-тың балалар интернетін қорғау туралы заңы: Конституциялық шаралар мен даулар

United States federal law

The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) is one of a number of bills that the United States Congress proposed to limit children's exposure to pornography and explicit content online.

Both of Congress's earlier attempts at restricting indecent Internet content, the Communications Decency Act and the Child Online Protection Act, were held to be unconstitutional by the U. S. Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds. CIPA represented a change in strategy by Congress. While the federal government had no means of directly controlling local school and library boards, many schools and libraries took advantage of Universal Service Fund (USF) discounts derived from universal service fees paid by users in order to purchase eligible telecom services and Internet access. In passing CIPA, Congress required libraries and K 12 schools using these E Rate discounts on Internet access and internal connections to purchase and use a "technology protection measure" on every computer connected to the Internet. These conditions also applied to a small subset of grants authorized through the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA). CIPA did not provide additional funds for the purchase of the "technology protection measure".

On January 17, 2001, the American Library Association (ALA) voted to challenge CIPA, on the grounds that the law required libraries to unconstitutionally block access to constitutionally protected information on the Internet. It charged first that, because CIPA's enforcement mechanism involved removing federal funds intended to assist disadvantaged facilities, "CIPA runs counter to these federal efforts to close the digital divide for all Americans". Second, it argued that "no filtering software successfully differentiates constitutionally protected speech from illegal speech on the Internet". Working with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ALA successfully challenged the law before a three judge panel of the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In a 200 page decision, the judges wrote that "in view of the severe limitations of filtering technology and the existence of these less restrictive alternatives [including making filtering software optional or supervising users directly], we conclude that it is not possible for a public library to comply with CIPA without blocking a very substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech, in violation of the First Amendment". 201 F. Supp.2d 401, 490 (2002). Upon appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court, however, the law was upheld as constitutional as a condition imposed on institutions in exchange for government funding. The argument goes that, because of the immense amount of information available online and how quickly it changes, libraries cannot separate items individually to exclude, and blocking entire websites can often lead to an exclusion of valuable information. Therefore, it is reasonable for public libraries to restrict access to certain categories of content. Secondly, "CIPA does not impose an unconstitutional condition on libraries that receive E Rate and LSTA subsidies by requiring them, as a condition on that receipt, to surrender their First Amendment right to provide the public with access to constitutionally protected speech". The argument here is that, the government can offer public funds to help institutions fulfill their roles, as in the case of libraries providing access to information. The Justices cited Rust v. Sullivan (1991) as precedent to show how the Court has approved using government funds with certain limitations to facilitate a program. Furthermore, since public libraries traditionally do not include pornographic material in their book collections, the court can reasonably uphold a law that imposes a similar limitation for online texts. As noted above, the text of the law authorized institutions to disable the filter on request "for bona fide research or other lawful purpose", implying that the adult would be expected to provide justification with his request. But under the interpretation urged by the Solicitor General and adopted by the Supreme Court, libraries would be required to adopt an Internet use policy providing for unblocking the Internet for adult users, without a requirement that the library inquire into the user's reasons for disabling the filter.

An attempt to expand CIPA to include "social networking" web sites was considered by the U. S. Congress in 2006. See Deleting Online Predators Act. More attempts have been made recently by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) and the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) urging Congress to update CIPA terms in hopes of regulating, not abolishing, students' access to social networking and chat rooms. Neither ISTE nor CoSN wish to ban these online communication outlets entirely however, as they believe the "Internet contains valuable content, collaboration and communication opportunities that can and do materially contribute to a student's academic growth and preparation for the workforce".

ALA's CIPA litigation history page. ALA v. US, Opinion of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, May 31, 2002
US v. ALA, Opinion of the US Supreme Court, June 23, 2003

FCC Order 03 188 dated July 23, 2003, adopting measures to ensure that the FCC's implementation of the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) complies with the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court. FCC Consumer Facts: CIPA. Universal Service Administrative Co. CIPA page .